get_network_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the data categories returned, which hints at read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, explain data freshness, or note any side effects. For a 'get' tool this is minimally sufficient, but the description adds little beyond the obvious from the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the three main data types. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation with no parameters or output schema, but it lacks clarity on how this tool differs from the many sibling tools. The listed data types (monthly bandwidth usage, speed tests, network monitor data) are somewhat vague and could overlap with get_wan_usage or get_network_performance. It does not specify the time range for 'recent' speed tests or the format of the returned data, leaving room for ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional param semantics are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets network statistics, listing three concrete data types (monthly bandwidth usage, recent speed tests, network monitor data). This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_wan_usage or get_network_performance, so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, and the existence of many sibling tools with similar scope (e.g., get_wan_usage, get_network_status) is not acknowledged. There is no contextual 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.